More than just that, though. The labels think that every $ in profit that Apple has made on iPods and iPhones is actually their profit that Apple has "stolen" from them. In their self-centered view of the universe, all the value-added of the iPod is their music. They don't have the least clue as to why the iPod was more successful than all the other mp3 players out there.

Even if they never say it, that's exactly the feeling the convey. If the talk about european publishers and iPad subscriptions is true, they pretty much have the same mindset. "Without our content, iPad is nothing."

Unfortunately for the content heads, a multi-purpose computing device doesn't serve only their ends.

This wouldn't be the first time Sony has shot itself in the foot.
Doubtful they would pull their music from Apple as their loss would be bigger than their gain .
3 to 5 years down the road is a long way to speculate and not reality as anything can happen in that time frame.

if Sony pulls a bone head move like this, I will never buy anything from them again.
I already don't like most Sony products, but I do have a sony bluray.
I will get Sony music "some other way" so Sony will never see a dime of it. Or simply just stop supporting artists who use sony.
Sony needs to stop trying to think of ways to block competition and just be competitive so people want their products.
Sony could have everything Apple has if they would just pull their heads out of their asses and do it.

That's not a problem, they pull they're stuff from iTunes and more people will pirate it. They'll do great from that won't they? Sony lost the plot years ago.

Well, the Sony guy did say "if" they gained traction with an alternative distribution system. So they wouldn't be so foolish as to pull their content off iTunes unless another, viable alternative was available first. It only makes sense...if something better comes along, they'd use it. And then they'd also use it as leverage to get a better deal from Apple because then pulling their content from iTunes would be a viable threat. But it all hinges of that "something better" coming along first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hal 9000

Well dude thats not the way to go. In my case I like buying used CDs though Ebay and sites like Borders Market. That way you legally own the music but at a fraction of the cost, sometimes 20cents a track (including shipping)! Not to mention you can rip the songs at the bit rate of your choice, specially in high quality formats sometimes not available for online purchase

You realize that many of those used CDs you are purchasing were first ripped by their original owners, perhaps several previous owners, before you purchased them at a discount? So in a way, you are still supporting piracy. Not by you of course. Kudos to you for paying for your music. Just making the observation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJinTX

Can someone please explain to me why I so many companies and developers are throwing a fit about this? If Apple is not stopping these purchases, but rather just trying to require for the conveniece of users that there is a choice between buying through a web portal or through the App itself, then why does Sony care? Am I missing something huge here? It seems ridiculous to resist providing an in-app purchase method.

As others have pointed out, the in-app route cuts 30% off the revenue the content provider gets for it's sales. And why should you care? Well, imagine if Sony could sell you a book for $10. They would probably distribute it to you themselves for $1 (just making that up) or let Apple distribute it for $3. So going the iTunes route just cost them 20%. That's HUGE! It's the same reason Apple would rather you buy your Mac directly from them instead of from Best Buy or Amazon. They get to keep all the money. Why shouldn't Sony desire the same thing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nervus

Publishers and content providers don't think they should have to share 30% of their revenue with Apple through in-app purchases. Basically Sony wants to provide their app for free then direct customers to a webpage or something else for purchasing content to use in the app cutting Apple out of the revenue all together. And basicly just use Apple's hosting/delivery services for free. They all want access to the promised land of billions of users without paying the gatekeeper to them, or maker of that promised land. It's an industry that is so used to getting their way and screwing everyone from the artist, distributers, and customers. They really don't like having to play with someone else's rules

Sure, but just to play devil's advocate...what is Apple doing to earn that 30% on the content? Sony uses Apple to distribute it's free app. But that's Apple's own fault for requiring all iOS apps to be distributed via iTunes. Earning a cut on download apps makes sense because iTunes is handling the UI for people to search, browse, review, and download the app. But for the content, Apple is nothing more than a "dumb pipe" (as we like to refer to the roll cellular provides should play). 30% seems pretty steep price for being a dumb pipe.

It would probably make sense for Apple to have a different cut of the price (10%?) for in app content purchases than for actual apps sales. Otherwise, if it were me, I'd sell my content for $10 from my own site and $13 if you get it in-app via Apple to make up for the revenue shortfall from Apple's cut. That would make is easy to find out if the "convenience" of in-app purchases are really worth 30% in the customer's eyes.

It only takes one to start the flood. 10 years ago iTunes was it, now things are changing a bit. One leaves, some others may follow. Curious to see how this turns out.

Me too. But like a flood, it also takes rain. These music companies just like the old ways where they controlled everything and made all the profit. With Apple the numbers are right there for everyone to see. INCLUDING THE ARTISTS.. Who now see how greedy the music companies really are.

Yes, Sony, teach us all a lesson and open up the Playstation for unlicensed games. Open up the Sony Reader for 3rd party apps. Or even better: Release DRM-free content that works anywhere. (At least stay way from rootkit DRMs)

No? Well, I didn't think so.

But at least don't get all whiney when someone else's restrictions make more money than your restrictions.

I have a Sony e-reader I have not used it since I bought an ipad 6 months ago but with the software that comes with it you have to buy books from a third party. so this must be a completely new store for them on the UK anyway.

The app rejection and the revenues Sony would lose seem to make this sound like it's an excuse or red herring since the the things are so far apart in reality from a business stand point. The real reason is more likely their own rival to iTunes not wanting the iTunes competition. This is a wreck in the making for Sony imo. It is sobering to think that yesterdays weird dip in AAPL was a 10 billion dollar movement which was a mere blip for Apple but about one third of Sony's entire market cap! I still wonder if Sony might not make a nice department for Apple Inc. The music rights alone would be sweet and think of all those nice HD cameras and professional equipment.

Sony owns alot of the content on iTunes being the largest of the big four music firms so this would put a dent in Apple. What is crazy is that it also includes the Beatles catalog (michael jackson leveraged with Sony) that Apple just promoted insanely around the world. I do not think Apple wants this head ache especially over policies they do and don't enforce (kindle, nook, marvel ect.) and that are likely to get them in anti-trust trouble with the FTC. This might actually improve and open up the iOS, at least that is my hope.

artists don't own music anymore, the big firms do and with sony taking the hottest content to other distributors (amzon, walmart, spotfy ect.) Apple stands to loose more than they would gain, they are not stupid.

....and what part of Universal winning variable pricing and album exclusive content concessions from Apple did you miss? "tail between the legs" umm, right. iTunes without content equals.....still iTunes but no content revenue for Apple, people can easily get superior content from other sources for iTunes to sync with (ripping from CD is much higher quality).

artists don't own music anymore, the big firms do and with sony taking the hottest content to other distributors (amzon, walmart, spotfy ect.) Apple stands to loose more than they would gain, they are not stupid.

I agree. Amazon will be the big winner here, Walmart as well. But I anticipate that reasonable minds at both Apple and Sony will reach an accomodation before the trigger is pulled. This in my mind is just a negotiation.

And to think that just ten years ago none of these tech giants would give Apple the time of day. Now they're complaining about how Apple is mean to them and won't play nice. Hence the "standing on a burning platform" comment from another tech giant recently.

Publishers and content providers don't think they should have to share 30% of their revenue with Apple through in-app purchases. Basically Sony wants to provide their app for free then direct customers to a webpage or something else for purchasing content to use in the app cutting Apple out of the revenue all together. And basicly just use Apple's hosting/delivery services for free. They all want access to the promised land of billions of users without paying the gatekeeper to them, or maker of that promised land. It's an industry that is so used to getting their way and screwing everyone from the artist, distributers, and customers. They really don't like having to play with someone else's rules

You're ignoring fiduciary responsibilities Sony's managers have to their shareholders. If Sony could drop iTunes and use other distribution channels that offer a greater profit return, even at lower revenues, then they have an obligation to provide the greatest return for their shareholders investment. Business wise, I understand why Sony is upset about the ereader problem. For starters, Apple is competing with them with hardware, software, and slowly encroaching on their digital content. Second, Apple is reducing Sony's contribution margin on books that Apple dictated the price to while keeping their contribution margins lower. This forces Sony to raise their prices higher than Apple's to make up that 30% cut, effectively cutting off Sony, and all other book distributors, from competing fairly (at least on iOS). Strategically, utilizing a core component of iTunes as a way to muscle one of your distributors is a reasonable decision, and possibly one of Sony's last efforts.

Now, everything I said above can be applied to Apple in reverse as to why Apple would do such things to provide a greater return for their shareholders. Unfortunately, the only people who lose are consumers and iOS owners, as Apple has effectively killed off all competition to the products and services Apple offers on these devices. Let's just hope Sony prevails so you, as consumers, get better competition and the lower prices that usually come with it.

....What is crazy is that it also includes the Beatles catalog (michael jackson leveraged with Sony) that Apple just promoted insanely around the world. I do not think Apple wants this head ache.......

Jackson, and Sony own part of the publishing on the Beatles material. All distribution and digital rights were negotiated by Apple Corp in England.

If only I could return to the days when Sony saw fit to sell me music on a proprietary technology that would prevent me from copying the music I purchased onto any other storage device or medium and Sony could install a rootkit program on my computer that would ensure that Sony knew more about me than they should, for only then did I feel free. Since iTunes I, too, feel shackled just like the major labels.

But seriously, does anyone remember when Sony attempted to "sell" music online? Courtesy of Wiki:

The major record labels eventually decided to launch their own services, allowing them more direct control over costs. Sony Music Entertainment's service did not do as well as was hoped. Many consumers felt the service was difficult to navigate and use. Sony's pricing of US$3.50 per song track also discouraged many early adopters of the service. Furthermore, as MP3 Newswire pointed out in its review of the service, users were actually only renting the tracks for that $3.50. After a certain point the files expired and could not be played again without repurchase. The service quickly failed.

What you guys don't get is that the music companies are desperate because their business is dying. Music sales in the U.S. are half of their 1999 peak. Citibank just took over an in-default EMI and has put it quickly up for sale in order to beat Warner Music putting themselves up for sale.

There are only four large music companies left (EMI, Sony, Warner Music Group and Universal). If Sony did pull out of iTunes, that would be a big blow for iTunes, no matter how much you guys love Apple and hate Sony.

It's not downloading that's killed the industry as much as the return to an industry based upon sales of singles. There's a lot of blame to be passed around for that, but it doesn't matter - it's killing the music business.

And while I don't think Apple is doing anything wrong "per se" in iTunes, I do think their policies are over-restrictive on the e-book and subscription issues and arrogance is getting the better of them. Giving Apple 30% is not viable for many types of publishing - except for the big "hits", publishing is a very short margin business even in the best of times.

I really resent it when Apple presents a 46-page license agreement whenever they change the terms of downloading applications for the iPhone. I realize it's 46 iPhone-sized pages, but such a license agreement is not what a truly consumer friendly company makes part of their policy.

artists don't own music anymore, the big firms do and with sony taking the hottest content to other distributors (amzon, walmart, spotfy ect.) Apple stands to loose more than they would gain, they are not stupid.

I have to disagree. Let's think this through. Say Sony pulls their content. How much revenue does Apple lose? Even with Sony being a big portion of the iTunes content, it's not like the loss would make much of a difference in Apple's overall revenue stream. Yes, it would frustrate customers who wanted to get their Sony music like they used to, but who would they be pissed at? Sony. Would anyone stop using iTunes for their other content needs just because Sony wasn't there? No. iTunes is the biggest distributer of music. This is like saying that Walmart would be hurt more if GE pulled all their products out than GE would. If GE threatened Walmart they might want to have a conversation about it. But GE would have to really work to make up for the loss of that channel if they actually left.

Sony is blowing smoke. They are trying to get some free publicity for their streaming service. Maybe they can make it work, but I don't want to have to pay a subscription and then have my music held hostage in the cloud so I had to keep subscribing to access it. If it is something where I can purchase it once and then stream it forever I might be interested, but that's not what it sounds like to me that Sony has in the works. iTunes isn't perfect, but it's better than anything else right now, including pirating.

Good luck with that. "Hostage"? You've sold a billion more tracks via iTunes than you would have otherwise. Pulling your songs from iTunes would be a moronic business move. I guess it is decisions like this that have been the cause of Sony's fall from grace.

He was very clear that they HOPE, depending on business.

It makes sense and probably has nothing to do with the blown out by the media e-reader thing. Why would Sony stay on iTunes and lose 30% if their service is raking in tons and they get to keep that money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crustyjusty

I wonder when Sony and Amazon will allow iTunes / iBooks purchases on their e-readers.

It's not their choice. It is Apple's. Those systems were set up to help sell hardware. So it is unlikely the Apple will ever allow their software on other phones/tablets. Same as Mac OS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gustav

One question, if Apple states they've always enforced the rule, why is the Kindle app still available on iTunes?

They never said that. They said that has been the rule for a while but they were giving leeway to existing apps to make the change. However, they announced a deadline of March 31, at which point we will likely see some pulled apps. Including Amazon if they don't add the option.

I have to disagree. Let's think this through. Say Sony pulls their content. How much revenue does Apple lose? Even with Sony being a big portion of the iTunes content, it's not like the loss would make much of a difference in Apple's overall revenue stream. Yes, it would frustrate customers who wanted to get their Sony music like they used to, but who would they be pissed at? Sony. Would anyone stop using iTunes for their other content needs just because Sony wasn't there? No. iTunes is the biggest distributer of music. This is like saying that Walmart would be hurt more if GE pulled all their products out than GE would. If GE threatened Walmart they might want to have a conversation about it. But GE would have really work to make up for the loss of that channel if they actually left.

Sony is blowing smoke. They are trying to get some free publicity for their streaming service. Maybe they can make it work, but I don't want to have to pay a subscription and then have my music held hostage in the cloud so I had to keep subscribing to access it. If it is something where I can purchase it once and then stream it forever I might be interested, but that's not what it sounds like to me that Sony has in the works. iTunes isn't perfect, but it's better than anything else right now, including pirating.

There is a difference between GE products and Sony content. Content, unlike most consumer electric products is uniquely differentiated. If I want to listent to a particular version of Giant Steps from John Coltrane, pulling down a copy of Giant Steps from Sonny Rollins isn't an adequate substitute. It would be good, but it isn't nearly the same thing. If I am forced to go to say, Amazon to buy my Sony content, I might just buy some of my other content while there, because once I'm plugged into Amazon's or Walmart's infrastructure, I've already learned how to use that ecosystem and the marginal cost of purchasing an additional item from that ecosystem goes down. I know, this to be true, since I now purchase the vast majority of my music from Amazon these days.

Having Sony on Amazon or Walmart and not on Itunes is an amazing selling point for Amazon and Walmart.

I think this battle is far more balanced than people in here believe. Which is why I think it will result in some type of nuanced agreement between the two.

Mmmm, don't think so, Apple could buy sony out at this point their in such bad shape. I'm sure somehow they'll reach a deal.

Regardless of the fact that Sony has been losing money, the market cap on Sony is $35 billion. Apple would have to pay a premium to buy it. Japanese regulations probably wouldn't permit a non-Japanese company to buy it anyway. Why would Apple buy it?

In 2009, Sony had 171,000 employees. Apple has about 37,000 employees. Absorbing Sony would be completely overwhelming to Apple. You can't run a company the size of Sony the way that Apple is run (with a very hands-on executive team). Apple has a relatively few number of products and services. Sony has tens of thousands, if not more.

It would never happen and if it did, it would kill Apple. Get real. The only possibility is that Sony decides to get out of the music business, but I doubt U.S. regulators would permit Apple, as the largest distributor of online music, to buy one of the remaining four large music companies. But even if the regulators permitted it, Sony would never sell, if only for face-saving reasons and especially after absorbing most of BMG (RCA).

My bet is that regardless of their cash hoard, there are no big Apple acquisitions while Steve is still CEO and unhealthy.

Interesting the way the tide has turned on this argument. When original story about the banning of the Sony e-book reader came out just nobody would believe that Apple would do such a bad thing. When it turns out they are doing a bad thing - something that reduces the value of your actual iPad and claims that you merely rent it. Well thats ok then.

This is what outsiders see as the Apple Cult. Rightly.

But most people who have an Apple device arent the 1% of cult members. If Kindle and Skype are missing, and Sony e-readers and so on, they will consider an Android Tablet. I still hope Apple win, but I hope they win fairly. And decently.

Quote:

Sony don't have a web portal for their e-book sales. Clicking purchase on their web site takes you to their app!

Yeah, the app downloads the content. The web portal is for purchasing. Same as a Kindle.

Even if they never say it, that's exactly the feeling the convey. If the talk about european publishers and iPad subscriptions is true, they pretty much have the same mindset. "Without our content, iPad is nothing."

Unfortunately for the content heads, a multi-purpose computing device doesn't serve only their ends.

There is a clear difference, of course. Apple stores and downloads the music you buy from Sony. And a Sony track can be downloaded from the web on OS X.

On the iPad Apple does not store the content for e-books. IAP is merely demanding 30% for a credit card purchase which the providers can handle themselves.

But seriously, does anyone remember when Sony attempted to "sell" music online? Courtesy of Wiki:

The major record labels eventually decided to launch their own services, allowing them more direct control over costs. Sony Music Entertainment's service did not do as well as was hoped. Many consumers felt the service was difficult to navigate and use. Sony's pricing of US$3.50 per song track also discouraged many early adopters of the service. Furthermore, as MP3 Newswire pointed out in its review of the service, users were actually only renting the tracks for that $3.50. After a certain point the files expired and could not be played again without repurchase. The service quickly failed.

Those were the days

\

WOW! Thanks for that reminder! Man, is it any wonder why everyone doesn't give a shit about labels??!!!!!!

I N C R E D I B L E : 3.50 for rented files! Those were back in my 100% Kazaa days.

Now that I'm a bit more grown up (ie- not student poor) iTunes makes it sooo easy for me to buy music that I'm too lazy to even open up the Pirate Bay to find stuff.

As someone else mentioned in this thread, I'm also a Shazam click-to-buy on iTunes person as well!